A New Chapter: Every Mind Arises and Ceases Equally

"Should the mind of every sentient being alike be said to arise equally, abide equally, and cease equally?" Such is the chapter heading, and such is the explanation of its meaning. Having grasped this, a full analysis should now be given. Why raise this discussion at all? To resolve a doubt for those who remain uncertain. Some sentient beings possess an exceptionally vast bodily form, while others possess an exceptionally minute one. Those of vast bodily form are exemplified by the beings within the great ocean whose own obtained bodies reach an enormous scale — a hundred yojanas, or two, three, four, five, six, or seven hundred, or even up to twenty-one hundred yojanas; or, as with the Rāhu-asura, whose vast form measures sixteen thousand yojanas in length, comparable to a body found in the Akaniṣṭha heaven. Those of minute bodily form are exemplified by tiny mosquitoes, ants, gnats, midges, and creatures as small as vinegar-flies, so fine that even the sharpest-eyed observer, straining with the utmost attention, still could not see them.

One might then doubt: does a vast body mean a vast mind, and a minute body a minute mind? To resolve this once and for all, the discussion makes clear that, however much matter may vary among sentient beings, their minds remain entirely equal. Moreover, some sentient beings move with great swiftness, while others move with great sluggishness. Those who move swiftly are exemplified by the horse, the deer, the cat, and the raccoon-dog; those who move sluggishly are exemplified by the grub and the earthworm. One might then come to doubt: does a being that moves swiftly thereby have a mind that arises and ceases swiftly,

while a being that moves sluggishly has a mind that arises and ceases sluggishly? To resolve this doubt once and for all, the discussion makes clear that, however much a sentient being's own great-element-produced matter may move quickly or slowly, the mind's own arising and ceasing remains entirely equal throughout. Moreover, some sentient beings possess a restless, agitated demeanor, their own understanding tossed about like a gust of wind or like sunlight rippling upon waves; others possess a grave, settled demeanor, their own understanding calm and still like a lamp burning within a sealed chamber. One might then come to doubt: does a being of restless demeanor and tossed understanding thereby have a mind that arises and ceases swiftly, while a being of grave demeanor and settled understanding has a mind that arises and ceases sluggishly? To resolve this doubt once and for all, the discussion makes clear that, however much a sentient being's own demeanor may be light or grave, and understanding buoyant or settled, the mind remains without exception equal in its arising and its ceasing. One might ask: if every sentient being's mind genuinely arises and ceases equally, why, then, do demeanor and understanding differ in weight and buoyancy at all? Answer: some sentient beings give rise to many minds across many objects, while others give rise to many minds upon a single object alone. If a being gives rise to many minds across many different objects, that being's demeanor will be restless and understanding tossed about; if a being gives rise to many minds upon a single object alone, that being's demeanor will be grave and understanding settled. It is for reasons such as these that the present discussion is raised. "Should the mind of every sentient being alike be said to arise equally, abide equally, and cease equally?" Answer: yes, it should. One might ask: does this mean that every single sentient being's mind arises and ceases equally, all of them together arising in a single instant and ceasing in a single instant? Or does it instead mean that not every sentient being's mind arises and ceases equally, nor do they all arise and cease within a single instant together? Whichever position is taken, what fault would follow? If every sentient being's mind does arise and cease equally, all together within a single instant, this might hold well enough for those actually possessing mind at that instant — but what of those in a mindless state, such as one who has entered the attainment of no-perception or the attainment of cessation? At that very moment, every other sentient being's mind is both arising and ceasing, while that one's own mind only ceases without arising; and when emerging from that same attainment, every other sentient being's mind is both ceasing and arising, while that one's own mind only arises without ceasing; and while actually abiding within that same attainment, every other sentient being's mind is both arising and ceasing, while that one's own mind neither arises nor ceases at all — how, then, could one possibly still speak of minds arising and ceasing equally, all within one and the same instant? But if not every sentient being's mind arises and ceases equally, nor do they all arise and cease within a single instant, then how is the statement already given — that every sentient being's mind arises, abides, and ceases equally — to be reconciled at all? Answer: it should be explained as follows: every sentient being's mind does indeed arise and cease equally, all of them together arising in a single instant and ceasing in a single instant. One might then ask: this might hold well enough for those possessing mind at that instant — but what of those in a mindless state? Answer: it holds well enough both for those possessing mind and for those without it. When entering the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, exactly as every other sentient being's mind arises, that very first instant of entering the attainment likewise genuinely arises; exactly as every other sentient being's mind ceases, the mind entering that attainment likewise ceases. When emerging from that same attainment, exactly as every other sentient being's mind arises, the mind of emergence likewise arises; exactly as every other sentient being's mind ceases, that very last instant of the attainment likewise genuinely ceases. And while actually abiding within the attainment, exactly as every other sentient being's mind arises and ceases moment by moment, the intervening moments of the attainment itself likewise arise and cease moment by moment. It is for this reason that the case holds equally well whether mind is present or absent. Other masters hold instead that not every sentient being's mind arises and ceases equally, nor do they all arise and cease within a single instant — for there are sentient beings whose mind ceases without arising, as with one entering the attainment of no-perception or of cessation; there are sentient beings whose mind arises without ceasing, as with one emerging from that same attainment; there are sentient beings whose mind neither arises nor ceases, as with one actually abiding within that same attainment; and there are sentient beings whose mind both arises and ceases, as with one who genuinely possesses mind throughout. One might ask: how, then, is the statement already given to be reconciled? Answer: this is spoken with reference to an equality of scale — lest one suppose that mind itself might be greater or lesser in size, the statement that every sentient being's mind is "equal" is made on this basis. On this account, every sentient being's mind does indeed arise and cease equally, all together within a single instant, since every conditioned dharma, once having arisen from its conditions, invariably ceases again. "Should the mind possessing craving, and the mind free of craving, both be said to arise equally, abide equally, and cease equally?" Answer: yes. The same holds for the mind possessing hatred and the mind free of hatred, the mind possessing delusion and the mind free of delusion, the contracted mind and the scattered mind, the low mind and the exalted mind, the small mind and the great mind, the agitated mind and the unagitated mind, the unsettled mind and the settled mind, the undetermined mind and the determined mind, the uncultivated mind and the cultivated mind, and the unliberated mind and the liberated mind — "should these too be said to arise equally, abide equally, and cease equally?" Answer: yes. One might ask: why raise this discussion at all? Answer: every defiled mind is heavy and sluggish by nature, while every wholesome mind is light and buoyant by nature. One might then come to doubt: does a defiled mind therefore arise and cease slowly, while a wholesome mind arises and ceases swiftly? To resolve this doubt once and for all, the discussion makes clear that both kinds of mind arise and cease equally, and it is for this reason that the present discussion is raised. A mind is called "possessing craving" for two reasons — first, because it is associated with craving, and second, because it is bound by craving. If it were called "possessing craving" only on the grounds of being associated with craving, then a mind associated with hatred and the like, or a wholesome or unobscured-neutral contaminated mind, ought also to be called "free of craving" — yet these too are called "possessing craving," since they remain bound by craving. Thus, although a mind is called "possessing craving" on two separate grounds, the present passage speaks only in terms of association, to avoid any confusion. A mind is likewise called "free of craving" for two reasons — first, because it is not associated with craving, and second, because it serves as craving's own antidote. If it were called "free of craving" only on the grounds of not being associated with craving, then a mind associated with hatred and the like ought also to be called "free of craving" — yet this cannot be right, since such a mind remains genuinely defiled. Thus, although a mind is called "free of craving" on two separate grounds, the present passage speaks only in terms of serving as craving's own antidote, to avoid any confusion. The mind possessing hatred and the mind free of hatred, and the rest, should each be understood accordingly by the very same standard. It should therefore be explained as follows: a mind "possessing craving" is one associated with craving; a mind "free of craving" is one that serves as craving's own antidote; a mind "possessing hatred" is one associated with hatred; a mind "free of hatred" is one that serves as hatred's own antidote; a mind "possessing delusion" is one associated with delusion; a mind "free of delusion" is one that serves as delusion's own antidote. The "contracted" mind is a wholesome mind that gathers itself in around its object; the "scattered" mind is a defiled mind that lets itself run loose upon its object. The treatise-masters of Gandhāra hold that whatever mind is associated with sleep should be called "contracted," since the World-Honored One himself declared sleep to be a contraction of mind — as the sūtra states: "what is sleep, and what is dreaming? It is a state in which the scattered mind is drawn together and contracted." One might ask: how, then, is this to be reconciled with what is stated in the Consciousness Aggregate — that the contracted mind is known exactly as it is through four kinds of knowledge, namely dharma-knowledge, class-knowledge, path-knowledge, and mundane knowledge, while the scattered mind is known exactly as it is through a single kind of knowledge alone, namely mundane knowledge? Answer: that account ought not to be so reconciled, since to do so would contradict what has been established elsewhere, and any account that requires composing a fresh treatise cannot be accepted merely for the sake of reconciliation. If one truly wished to reconcile it, that very passage itself would need to be revised to read: the contracted mind, the scattered mind, and the low mind are each known through a single kind of knowledge alone, namely mundane knowledge, while the exalted mind and the rest are known through the four kinds of knowledge already described. But this proposed reconciliation is itself unreasonable — for if it were accepted, a defiled mind associated with sleep would then have to be called both "contracted" and "scattered" at once, since it is both associated with sleep and genuinely defiled. To avoid precisely this kind of fault, the account already given earlier should be preferred as correct.

The "low" mind is a defiled mind associated with laziness; the "exalted" mind is a wholesome mind associated with diligence. The "small" mind is a defiled mind, cultivated by only a small number of beings; the "great" mind is a wholesome mind, cultivated by a great number of beings. One might ask: countless sentient beings habitually practice every manner of evil conduct rather than any excellent conduct, so that defiled minds are far more often present before them than wholesome ones — how, then, can the defiled mind still be called "cultivated by only a small number," and the wholesome mind "cultivated by a great number"? Answer: the name "great" or "small" is not established on the basis of sheer numbers at all — whatever is capable of cultivating the pure, bright dharmas is called "great," and everything else is called "small." Throughout the three realms there exists only a single Buddha at any one time, called "great" because he alone fully possesses the pure, bright dharmas; every other kind of being, however numerous, is called "small," since none of them possesses those pure, bright dharmas in their entirety. Another position holds that the defiled mind is called "small" because it is obtained cheaply — a defiled mind requires no preparatory effort and no expenditure of wealth at all, arising continuously the moment even the slightest unreasonable attention is given, flowing on like a great river; the wholesome mind is called "great" because it is obtained only at great cost — every wholesome mind depends upon preparatory effort, and often upon considerable preparatory effort, such that even one who would give away a thousand pieces of precious treasure may or may not thereby succeed in bringing it forth. Another position holds that the defiled mind is called "small" because it is associated with only a few faculties — every defiled mind is associated with only one or two faculties at most, never the full complement of three; the wholesome mind is called "great" because it is associated with many faculties — every wholesome mind is associated with all three faculties without exception. Another position holds that the defiled mind is called "small" because only a few things accompany it — every defiled mind is accompanied only by the three aggregates; the wholesome mind is called "great" because many things accompany it — every wholesome mind is accompanied by either three or four aggregates. Another position holds that the defiled mind is called "small" because it has few dependents — no defiled mind is ever cultivated for the sake of the future; the wholesome mind is called "great" because it has many dependents — every wholesome mind is indeed cultivated for the sake of the future. Another position holds that the defiled mind is called "small" because little is required to counter it — many afflictions may present themselves in continuous succession, severing only a little of one's wholesome roots, which then resume again afterward; the wholesome mind is called "great" because much is required to counter it — as when a single thought-moment of the patient acceptance of the dharma-knowledge of suffering suddenly and completely cuts off, once and for all, the ten kinds of underlying tendency that are cut off by seeing suffering within the desire realm, so that they never arise again. Another position holds that the defiled mind is called "small" because its own guiding leader is inferior. What, then, counts as a defiled mind's own guiding leader? It is ignorance — for ignorance, serving as guiding leader, gives rise to countless unwholesome and evil dharmas, and further gives rise to shamelessness and lack of conscience, exactly as a caravan-leader who is himself blind and lame will cause every one of his fellow merchants to fail in whatever they were seeking. The wholesome mind is called "great" because its own guiding leader is superior. What, then, counts as a wholesome mind's own guiding leader? It is the illumination of wisdom.

For the illumination of wisdom, serving as guiding leader, gives rise to countless excellent and wholesome dharmas, and further gives rise to genuine shame and conscience, exactly as a caravan-leader possessed of sight and sound limbs will bring every one of his fellow merchants to the successful fulfillment of whatever they sought. Another position holds that the defiled mind is called "small" because its own power is weak, and the wholesome mind is called "great" because its own power is strong — for evil dharmas habitually cultivated since beginningless time will, the very instant a wholesome dharma arises, all at once be driven far away, exactly as one who has grown used, over a long span of time, to a sense of nothing tasting of salt will find that very sensation entirely dispelled the moment salt actually touches the tongue, or exactly as darkness long accumulated within a room is instantly banished the moment a lamp's own light reaches it; and a wholesome dharma, once it cuts off an evil one, ensures it never arises again, whereas an evil dharma, even once it cuts off a wholesome one, will inevitably see that wholesome dharma resume again later on. It is for reasons such as these that the defiled mind is called "small" and the wholesome mind "great." The "agitated" mind is a defiled mind associated with restlessness; the "unagitated" mind is a wholesome mind associated with equanimity. The "unsettled" mind is a defiled mind associated with what is not calm, since every affliction is by its very nature not calm; the "settled" mind is a wholesome mind associated with what is calm, since every wholesome dharma is by its very nature calm. The "undetermined" mind —

is a defiled mind associated with scatteredness; the "determined" mind is a wholesome mind associated with concentration. The "uncultivated" mind is a mind not cultivated with respect to either the cultivation of obtaining or the cultivation of active practice; the "cultivated" mind is a mind cultivated with respect to either or both of these same two kinds of cultivation. The "unliberated" mind is a mind not liberated with respect to either liberation of intrinsic nature or liberation of continuity; the "liberated" mind is a mind liberated with respect to either or both of these same two kinds of liberation. "Should the life-faculty be said to follow the mind, or not to follow the mind?" Answer: it does not follow the mind. One might ask: why raise this discussion at all? Answer: to block a rival school's own position and to make clear this treatise's own view. The Vibhajyavādins hold that the life-faculty follows the mind. One might ask: on what grounds do they make this claim? Answer: on the authority of the sūtra, which states that life, warmth, and consciousness come together as a combination, never apart from one another — these three dharmas can never be posited as separate and distinct from each other — and it is from this that they draw their proof that the life-faculty follows the mind. To block this position and to make clear that the life-faculty does not follow the mind, the present discussion is raised. One might ask: why, exactly, does the life-faculty not follow the mind? Answer: whatever genuinely follows the mind must arise, abide, and cease together with the mind as one single event, and the life-faculty is not fixedly bound to arise, abide, and cease together with the mind as one single event in this way. Another position holds that whatever genuinely follows the mind must share with the mind a single fruit, a single outflow, and a single ripening, and the life-faculty does not fixedly share with the mind a single fruit, outflow, and ripening in this way. Another position holds that whatever genuinely follows the mind must co-arise with the mind, and the life-faculty is not fixedly co-arisen with the mind. Another position holds that whatever genuinely follows the mind must, by its very nature, be wholesome whenever the mind is wholesome, and likewise unwholesome or neutral, whereas the life-faculty is only ever neutral — for if it truly followed the mind, the life-faculty would have to change whenever a neutral mind became present, and would have to be cut off altogether whenever a wholesome or unwholesome mind became present instead. Another position holds that whatever genuinely follows the mind must, by its very nature, be bound to the desire realm whenever the mind is bound to the desire realm, and likewise bound to the form or formless realm or unbound, whereas the life-faculty is bound to only one of the three realms at a time, following instead whichever realm one happens to be born into — this realm's own life-faculty, and no other's — for if it truly followed the mind, then, for a being born in the desire realm, the life-faculty would have to change whenever a desire-realm mind became present, and would have to be cut off altogether whenever a form-realm mind or the like became present instead, and the same reasoning would apply, mutatis mutandis, to one born in the formless realm. Another position holds that whatever genuinely follows the mind must, by its very nature, belong to the trainee whenever the mind belongs to the trainee, and likewise to the one beyond training or to neither, whereas the life-faculty belongs only to what is neither trainee nor beyond training — for if it truly followed the mind, the life-faculty would have to change whenever a mind belonging to neither category became present, and would have to be cut off altogether whenever a trainee's or beyond-training mind became present instead. Another position holds that whatever genuinely follows the mind must, by its very nature, be cut off by seeing whenever the mind is cut off by seeing, and likewise cut off by cultivation or uncuttable, whereas the life-faculty is only ever cut off by cultivation — for if it truly followed the mind, the life-faculty would have to change whenever a mind cut off by cultivation became present, and would have to be cut off altogether whenever a mind cut off by seeing or otherwise uncuttable became present instead. Another position holds that whatever genuinely follows the mind must, by its very nature, exist whenever mind exists

and be absent whenever mind is absent — so that, if the life-faculty truly followed the mind, it would have to change whenever mind was present and would have to be altogether cut off whenever mind was absent, in which case one abiding in the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, or a being born into the no-perception heaven with mind altogether inoperative, would then have to be declared already dead, having no life-faculty remaining at all. To avoid precisely this kind of fault, the life-faculty must not be said to follow the mind. One might ask: how, then, is the passage the Vibhajyavādins themselves cite to be reconciled — namely, that life, warmth, and consciousness come together as a combination, never apart from one another, and so on, as stated at length? The Venerable Vasumitra explains: this is spoken with reference to a single underlying basis and a single continuity — meaning simply that these three dharmas can all genuinely be found together within one and the same underlying basis and one and the same continuity, not that these three dharmas must necessarily follow one another in lockstep at every moment. Were one to insist on taking this passage as establishing some fixed, invariant rule, one would then also have to deny the very distinctness of the aggregates, elements, and bases, since that same sūtra states that these three dharmas cannot be posited as separate and distinct from one another — yet the life-faculty is itself included within the formations aggregate, the dharma-element, and the dharma-base, warmth is included within the form aggregate, the tangible element, and the tangible base, and consciousness is included within the consciousness aggregate and the seven mental elements and the mental base — and it is precisely for this reason that the passage should not be taken literally at face value. Moreover, if these three dharmas were truly, invariably bound together, the formless realm would then have to possess warmth, and non-sentient things would have to possess life and consciousness, and one abiding in the attainment of no-perception and the like would have to possess actively functioning consciousness — and were one to accept any of these consequences, this would directly contradict the noble teaching and correct reasoning alike.

It is for this reason that this passage cannot be taken as establishing a fixed rule simply by following its own literal wording; one should instead understand that it speaks of a mere possibility of combination, and so on, exactly as already explained.

"Should the life-faculty be said to follow the continuum in its own transformation, or to arise once and simply abide thereafter?" Answer: for a sentient being of the desire realm who does not abide within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, it should be said to follow the continuum;

for one who does abide within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, and for a sentient being of the form or formless realm, it should be said to arise once and simply abide thereafter. One might ask: why raise this discussion at all? Answer: to block a rival school's own position and to make clear this treatise's own view. The Dṛṣṭāntikas do not accept that death can ever occur out of its proper time. Why is this so? Because the sūtra states that a lifespan, once it reaches its natural end, cannot be rescued or prolonged — and from this they conclude that untimely death never occurs at all. To block this position and to make clear that untimely death does indeed occur, the present discussion is raised. One might ask: what, exactly, does it mean for the life-faculty to "follow the continuum"? One position holds that "calamity" is what is meant by "continuum" here — namely, for a being born in the desire realm who does not abide within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, the life-faculty follows the continuum of calamity in its own transformation. Why is this so? Because whoever fails to act constantly and turn constantly with regard to their own lifespan, fails to receive it and act upon it constantly, fails to act at the proper time and in the proper place, fails to practice the holy life, eats what is unsuitable or in improper quantity, lets what has arisen go unripened or holds onto what has already ripened, fails to discern what is suitable from what is not, does not take medicine, does not heed a physician's own counsel, does not avoid danger and calamity, and indulges in every manner of reckless entertainment — such a person's own lifespan will, through these very causes, come to an untimely end. But whoever acts constantly and turns constantly with regard to their own lifespan, receives it and acts upon it constantly, acts at the proper time and in the proper place, practices the holy life, eats what is suitable and in proper quantity, lets what has ripened be discarded and tends carefully to what has arisen, discerns what is suitable from what is not, takes medicine, heeds a physician's own counsel, avoids danger and calamity, and keeps far from reckless entertainment — such a person's own lifespan will not, through these causes, come to an untimely end. Another position holds that "the physical body" is what is meant by "continuum" here — namely, for a being born in the desire realm who does not abide within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, the life-faculty follows the continuum of the physical body in its own transformation. Why is this so? Because if the body remains sound and balanced, the lifespan will not come to an untimely end, whereas if the body is damaged or destroyed, the lifespan will indeed come to an untimely end. Another position holds that "another's body" is what is meant by "continuum" here — namely, for a being born in the desire realm who does not abide within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, the life-faculty follows the continuum of another's body in its own transformation. Why is this so? Because if another's body does no harm to one's own life, the lifespan will not come to an untimely end, whereas if it does cause harm, the lifespan will indeed come to an untimely end. One might ask: what, exactly, does it mean for the life-faculty to "arise once and simply abide thereafter"? Answer: this means that, once arisen in dependence on its own cause, the life-faculty continues to abide steadily thereafter, following neither the transformations of calamity nor the harm inflicted by one's own body or another's — namely, a being of the desire realm presently abiding within the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, and a being born in the higher realms, whose lifespan in every such case does not follow any external condition in its own transformation. One might ask: a being of the desire realm who does not enter either of the two mindless attainments likewise possesses a certain fixed span of life not following external conditions — why, then, does the treatise not mention this case as well? Answer: this too ought to have been mentioned, and simply was not; one should understand that there is a further point of meaning here still to be drawn out. Another position holds that

what is spoken of here as fixed and determinate refers specifically to the case where, while actually abiding within either of the two mindless attainments, the life-faculty's own functioning is fixedly determinate and does not follow external conditions; in every other case, it may or may not follow such conditions, and it is for this reason that these other cases go unmentioned. Another position holds that, although the desire realm does indeed contain further instances of life not following external conditions, the passage speaks specifically of these two particular attainments in order to display their own especially potent power.

As the sūtra itself states, a sentient being's own obtained body is of four kinds: first, an obtained body that can be harmed by oneself but not by another;

second, an obtained body that can be harmed by another but not by oneself; third, an obtained body that can be harmed either by oneself or by another; and fourth, an obtained body that can be harmed by neither oneself nor another. What, then, is meant by a sentient being's own obtained body that can be harmed by oneself but not by another? This refers to certain gods of the desire realm, prone to playful forgetfulness, who at times become so absorbed in adorning their own bodies and indulging in play that they exhaust themselves past the proper time, losing all mindfulness, and thereby die; and to certain other gods of the desire realm, prone to indignant resentment, who at times, locked in mutual fury and glaring at one another with furious eyes, nurse their own rage for so long without releasing it that they perish from it directly; and to a certain class of beings — whether nāgas, garuḍas, spirits, humans, or others besides — who can be harmed by themselves but never by another.

What is meant by a sentient being's own obtained body that can be harmed by another but not by oneself? This refers to a being still confined within an eggshell or a womb, its faculties not yet complete and not yet mature; and to a certain class of beings — whether nāgas, garuḍas, spirits, humans, or others besides — who can be harmed by another but never by themselves. What is meant by a sentient being's own obtained body that can be harmed either by oneself or by another? This refers to every manner of bird and beast, whether nāga, garuḍa, spirit, human, or otherwise, capable of being harmed either by itself or by another. What is meant by a sentient being's own obtained body that can be harmed by neither oneself nor another? This refers to every being born in the form or formless realm, every intermediate-state being, every being of the hells, one abiding within the attainment of no-perception, the attainment of cessation, or the attainment of loving-kindness,

faith-followers and dharma-followers, a Bodhisattva in his final existence, together with a Bodhisattva's own mother while carrying him in her womb, a Wheel-Turning King, together with a Wheel-Turning King's own mother while carrying him in her womb, a royal seer, one whom the Buddha has prophesied, such as the merchant's son Gaṅgā-Śroṇa, Kṣudrika, the merchant's son Draviḍa, the weaver's son Cāraśreṣṭha, and Jīvaka Kumārabhṛta at that time — every being of whom the Buddha has prophesied that they now abide in their final existence, their work still unfinished — the people of Uttarakuru at the very beginning of the eon, the nāga king Airāvaṇa, the nāga king Suṣadhā, King Yama, and every remaining being of this same kind, none of whom can be harmed at all by either themselves or another. These, then, are the four kinds of obtained body.

The World-Honored One once declared that there exist obtained bodies that can be harmed neither by oneself nor by another. At that time, the Venerable Śāriputra rose from his seat, bared one shoulder, knelt upon his right knee, and, with palms joined in reverence, addressed the Buddha, saying: "which sentient beings possess an obtained body that can be harmed neither by themselves nor by another?" The Buddha replied to Śāriputra: "sentient beings of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception can be harmed neither by themselves nor by another." One might ask, since one question naturally gives rise to another: did the Venerable Śāriputra himself already know the answer to this question when he asked it? If he already knew, why did he ask at all? And if he did not already know, how could he possibly be called a śrāvaka who has reached the very summit of attainment? And how, moreover, could the World-Honored One be said never to "rain down the Dharma" upon ground unfit and unready to receive it, if the teaching he gave in reply were thereby rendered fruitless and empty? Some hold that the Venerable Śāriputra already knew the answer and asked anyway. One might then ask: if he already knew, why did he ask at all?

Answer: he asked precisely because he already knew — exactly as the Vinaya itself states that the World-Honored One, though already knowing, would still deliberately ask, in order to make what he was about to teach all the more clear and evident. Moreover, although the Venerable Śāriputra himself already understood the matter, he asked for the sake of benefiting others, since there remained members of the assembly who did not yet understand,

and who, lacking the confidence to do so themselves, could not bring themselves to question the Buddha directly — whereas the Venerable Śāriputra, possessed of genuine confidence, asked precisely for their benefit, even though he himself already knew the answer. Others hold instead that the Venerable Śāriputra genuinely did not yet know the answer, and so he asked. One might then ask: if this is so, how could he possibly still be called a śrāvaka who has reached the very summit of attainment? Answer: not knowing something, and then coming to know it once it has been explained — what fault could there possibly be in that? One might ask: how, then, could it be said that the Buddha never "rains down the Dharma" upon ground unfit and unready to receive it, thereby rendering what he taught fruitless and empty?

Answer: although the Venerable Śāriputra himself did not yet know the answer, there were others present within that same assembly who did already know it — the Bodhisattva Maitreya, for instance — and so the teaching was not, even so, rendered fruitless at all. As for uncontaminated wisdom, Śāriputra was indeed superior at that particular moment; but as for this kind of mundane wisdom, the Bodhisattva Maitreya was superior instead — and it is for this very reason that the Buddha, on a certain occasion, once discussed a mundane truth together with the Bodhisattva Maitreya that none of the great śrāvakas present, Śāriputra included, was able to fully grasp. One might ask: the obtained bodies of the lower grounds, too, include some that can be harmed by neither oneself nor another — why, then, does the Buddha mention only the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception here? Answer: by raising what comes last, what comes first is thereby made clear — this is precisely the pattern followed here. The World-Honored One, in certain passages, raises what comes last in order to make clear what comes first, exactly as, in other passages, he raises what comes first in order to make clear what comes last — as when he speaks of "secluded from unwholesome, unskillful dharmas, accompanied by discursive thought and investigation, one dwells fully in the first dhyāna, born of seclusion, filled with joy and pleasure," and so on. Just as raising what comes last can make clear what comes first, and raising what comes at the very end can make clear what comes at the very beginning, so too, raising what pertains to emergence can make clear what pertains to entry, and raising what pertains to the final outcome can make clear what pertains to the preparatory approach leading up to it — this should all be understood in just the same manner. Another position holds that the lower grounds are not fixed in this respect, and it is for this reason that they go unmentioned — for a sentient being's own obtained body in the lower grounds may sometimes be free of calamity, as with one abiding in the attainment of no-perception, or may sometimes be subject to calamity, as with the playful and forgetful gods already described — whereas the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is fixedly and invariably free of any such calamity, and it is for this reason that this sphere alone is singled out for mention. Another position holds that, within the four dhyānas and the three lower formless attainments,

there can likewise occur events of the same kind as the desire realm's playful and forgetful death, whereas the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception admits of no such event whatsoever, and it is for this reason that it alone is singled out for mention. Another position holds that

every being of the lower grounds is subject to the overwhelming power of affliction, such that, should such affliction become present, an untimely death may indeed follow — whereas the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception has no such affliction at all, and it is for this reason that the World-Honored One mentions only this particular ground. The Venerable Dharmatrāta offers the following explanation: "harmed by oneself," in this context, means harmed by one's own ground's own antidote-path; "harmed by another," in this context, means harmed by the neighboring antidote-path of a higher ground.

The obtained body of the first dhyāna can be harmed by itself — namely, by the noble path proper to its own ground — and can be harmed by another — namely, by the mundane path neighboring the second dhyāna. And so on, up through the obtained body of the sphere of nothing-at-all, which can be harmed by itself — namely, by the noble path proper to its own ground — and can be harmed by another — namely, by the mundane path neighboring the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception. The obtained body of the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception, however, cannot be harmed by itself, since that ground possesses no noble path of its own, and likewise cannot be harmed by another, since there exists no still-higher ground whose neighboring mundane path could ever reach it. It is for this reason that only the sphere of neither-perception-nor-non-perception is said to possess an obtained body harmed by neither.

"For one abiding in the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, should the lifespan be said to be in flux, or simply static?" Answer: it should be said to be in flux. One might ask: why raise this discussion at all? Answer: to resolve a doubt for those who remain uncertain. For one abiding in the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, every mind and mental factor is altogether inoperative; at that time, mind and mental factors neither arise nor cease at all. One might then come to doubt that the life-force present at that stage, exactly like mind and mental factors, likewise simply neither arises nor ceases but remains frozen and static. To dispel precisely this doubt, and to make clear that the life-force at this stage genuinely arises and ceases moment by moment, the present discussion is raised. One might ask: what, exactly, does "in flux" mean here? Answer: arising and ceasing continuously from moment to moment is what is meant by "in flux" — this is a matter of continuous flowing, not a matter of frozen, static abiding. As the World-Honored One himself declared, a person's own lifespan gradually exhausts itself, exactly like the water of a small stream. If a sentient being's lifespan, once arisen, simply abides thereafter, how, then, can it be known that the lifespan is gradually being exhausted at all? Answer: this is known through the exhaustion of the world and the exhaustion of the eon.

One might ask: why raise this discussion at all? Answer: to resolve a doubt for those who remain uncertain. The passage already given earlier states that, for one abiding in the attainment of no-perception or of cessation, and for a sentient being of the form or formless realm, the lifespan should be said to arise once and simply abide thereafter — from which one might mistakenly suppose that such a lifespan, once arisen, simply never ceases at all. To dispel precisely this doubt, and to make clear that this life-force, free of calamity, is what is meant by "arising once and simply abiding," even though it genuinely arises and ceases moment by moment, gradually exhausting itself all the while, the present discussion is raised. One might ask: the five aggregates, too, are all gradually exhausted in just this same way — why, then, does the World-Honored One speak specifically of the gradual exhaustion of the lifespan alone? Answer: the World-Honored One here raises the gradual exhaustion of the lifespan specifically in order to make clear that all five aggregates likewise share in this same gradual exhaustion. Another position holds that the lifespan is the most excellent among the five, and the Buddha, by raising what is most excellent, thereby makes clear what is lesser, and it is for this reason that he speaks only of the exhaustion of the lifespan. Another position holds that the life-faculty sustains the other four aggregates, so that speaking of the exhaustion of life is already, implicitly, to speak of the exhaustion of the five aggregates as a whole. Another position holds that when the life-faculty is cut off, one's own class of continuity is likewise cut off, and when one's own class of continuity is cut off, the five aggregates are likewise cut off — and the Buddha, speaking always in terms of what is most fundamental, therefore speaks of the exhaustion of the lifespan. Another position holds that the measure of one's lifespan can increase or decrease, flourish or decline, and it is for this reason that the Buddha singles it out for mention. One might ask: every destiny of rebirth shares in this same gradual exhaustion of lifespan — why, then, does the Buddha speak specifically of the gradual exhaustion of a human lifespan alone? Answer: the Buddha, at that particular moment, was teaching specifically for the benefit of human beings. Another position holds that the Buddha's own intention was to take the human case as representative, thereby making clear that every destiny's own lifespan is likewise gradually exhausted. Another position holds that the Buddha himself belongs to the very same class as human beings, and so what he teaches most often accords with the human case. Another position holds that the human lifespan admits of an especially pronounced increase and decrease, flourishing and decline — for at the very beginning of the eon, the human lifespan was immeasurably long, gradually diminishing afterward down to eighty thousand years, and diminishing further still down to a mere ten years — and it is through this that the gradual exhaustion of the human lifespan becomes so plainly and clearly evident, whereas this is not so evident in other destinies, and it is for this reason that the Buddha singles out the human case for mention.

One might ask: the water of a great river, too, undergoes this same gradual exhaustion — why, then, does the Buddha compare the lifespan specifically to a small stream instead? Answer: a great river flows on continuously, its own gradual exhaustion never becoming apparent, quite unlike a small stream, which may at times overflow its banks, as during the summer rains, and at other times run entirely dry, as when the cold season arrives — and every sentient being's own river of life behaves in just this same way, at times overflowing, as at the moment of taking rebirth, and at times running utterly dry, as at the moment life is relinquished. It is for this reason that the World-Honored One chose the image of the small stream specifically for his simile. Whoever's lifespan, once arisen, simply abides thereafter — namely, one abiding within either of the two mindless attainments, and every being of the higher realms —

as for what is meant by "the exhaustion of the world" and "the exhaustion of the eon," one position holds that subtle impermanence is called "the exhaustion of the world," while coarse impermanence is called "the exhaustion of the eon." Another position holds that momentary impermanence is called "the exhaustion of the world," while the impermanence of an entire lifespan's span is called "the exhaustion of the eon." Another position holds that the impermanence of things belonging to sentient beings is called "the exhaustion of the world," while the impermanence of things not belonging to sentient beings is called "the exhaustion of the eon." Another position holds that the impermanence of internal dharmas is called "the exhaustion of the world," while the impermanence of external dharmas is called "the exhaustion of the eon."

"How many faculties cease upon entering the attainment of no-perception, and so on, as stated at length?" One might ask: why raise this discussion at all? Answer: to block a rival school's own position and to make clear this treatise's own view. The Dṛṣṭāntikas and the Vibhajyavādins hold that a subtle mind does not cease even within the attainment of no-perception, arguing as follows: if the attainment of no-perception genuinely involved no mind whatsoever, the life-faculty would thereby be cut off, and this ought properly to be called death, not merely "abiding in attainment." To block this position and to make clear that the attainment of no-perception genuinely involves no mind at all, the present discussion is raised. Another school holds that, although this attainment genuinely involves no mind, it can nonetheless become present the very moment one becomes free from desire's own contamination, since it shares the same ground with that contamination. To block this position and to make clear that the attainment of no-perception can become present only once one has become free from the contamination of the Śubhakṛtsna heaven while not yet free from the contamination above it — since it fixedly requires the fourth dhyāna as its own immediately preceding condition — the Venerable Vasumitra accordingly states as follows: what, then, is the attainment of no-perception? It is the state in which, for one who has already become free from the contamination of the Śubhakṛtsna heaven but not yet free from what lies above it, mind and mental factors cease, preceded by an attention directed toward emergence from perception itself — this, and this alone, is what is called the attainment of no-perception. It is for this very reason that the present discussion is raised. "How many faculties cease upon entering the attainment of no-perception?" Answer: seven — the mind-faculty, equanimity, and faith with its four companions. "To which realm are the mind and mental factors that cease here bound?" Answer: to the form realm — though this, too, is spoken only in terms of realm and category, comprehensively; in truth, it is bound exclusively to the ground of the fourth dhyāna. "How many faculties become present upon emerging from the attainment of no-perception?" Answer: seven, exactly as already described.

"To which realm are the mind and mental factors that become present here bound?" Answer: to the form realm — this, too, is spoken only in terms of realm and category, comprehensively; in truth, it is bound exclusively to the ground of the fourth dhyāna. It is precisely on this basis that the attainment of no-perception is shown to involve, without any doubt, no mind whatsoever — for, upon entering the attainment, the passage speaks only of the faculties and of mind and mental factors ceasing,

never of their arising; while upon emerging from the attainment, the passage speaks only of the faculties and of mind and mental factors arising, never of their ceasing.